slowen

i'm just making assumptions. i think it's fairly clear that the percentages aren't cumulative--there's no way they'd be moving around as much as we've seen. emrata went from 21% after 9 days of voting to 13% on the 10th day. there's virtually no way that happens in a cumulative vote. so i'm assuming that they're over the last 24 to maybe 96 hours. that part is hard to tell. and yeah, we also don't know how many votes are being cast on each day, but i made some assumptions about that, too, once again using google trends to gauge interest over time.

yeah, he probably got totally bored of having sex with madalina ghenea what a life!

ok, let's say there are four options: blinky, inky, pinky, and clyde, and three days of voting. the percentages on each day look like this: day 1 2 3 3-day average blinky 35 30 28 31 inky 30 32 34 32 pinky 20 18 16 18 clyde 15 20 22 19 so at first glance, inky wins! but...what if there were actually more votes cast on day 1 than on days 2 and 3...then all of a sudden blinky's early lead matters a lot more. so depending on what assumptions you make about the number of votes on different days, blinky wins. day 1 2 3 weighted average blinky 35% 30% 28% 32.2% inky 30% 32% 34% 31.3% pinky 20% 18% 16% 18.7% clyde 15% 20% 22% 17.8% total number of votes 300 200 100 does that make sense? blinky's vote is like 35% times 300, plus 30% times 200, plus 28% times 100. divide by 600 votes and you get 32.2% (edit: the tables i tried to make didn't show up well)

i fully expect that the percentages are not cumulative totals but just the percentages of the past 24 or so hours. so to determine the cumulative total, it's perhaps best just to add up the percentages from all of the daily posts i've made, which have generally been around the same time of day. doing that, the totals look like this: emily ratajkowski, 236 gigi hadid, 224 sara sampaio, 196 samantha hoopes, 141 hannah ferguson, 110 all other girls, below 100 however, this is just a simple average. more likely there were more votes cast in the first few days that the website was up--in that case, the earlier percentages should count for more. using the data from here, you can guess that the votes in the past few days are worth about half as much as the 18th and 19th. as of now, that weighted approach doesn't change the rankings, but it may matter in the final four days if votes for gigi or sara really outnumber those for emrata. by my math, gigi's percentages would have to be about 2.3 times emrata over the next four days. sara's would have to be almost 9 times emrata. so unless we see the percentages over the weekend shake out like that, i think we'll be saying congrats to emrata, ROTY 2014!

February 27, 9pm Sara Sampaio 30% Hannah Ferguson 25% Emily Ratajkowski 13% Samantha Hoopes 13% Gigi Hadid 11% Cris Urena 4%

February 26, 9pm Sara Sampaio 21% Emily Ratajkowski 21% Samantha Hoopes 19% Gigi Hadid 19% Hannah Ferguson 10% Cris Urena 5% Marloes Horst 3%

do you know what "gives a shit" means? and you say i can't read? your post is the opposite of what you meant... Slowen, is English not your first language or are you trolling? This is not the first time I have seen somebody say "gives a shit" in this context to be a little more creative with the language and be funny. And nobody in their right mind gives a shit about it. exactly! you're using it correctly. what MsLima meant to say is that Lily must NOT give a shit. me fail English? that's unpossible!

just as a word of warning, if you like samantha: stay out of the SI2014 thread. they're really negative about her. it's bad enough that i got warned just for saying something in her defense! i think her SI shoot was pretty good. not as stellar as i was expecting based on her guess campaign but still pretty good.

so SI is rigging the vote and giving lily 2%...thereby admitting that they messed up...because no one likes her...because her percentage at 2%...because SI has rigged the voting? yeah, i think i'm beginning to understand how you think!

do you know what "gives a shit" means? and you say i can't read? your post is the opposite of what you meant...

so, to summarize: "when someone i don't like wins, it's rigged! when someone i like wins, well, obviously that's legitimate"

two images to consider for how certain models have gotten extra attention from the issue. these are google searches in the U.S. in the past 30 days: on friday, february 14, the first day after the cover came out, nina and lily (red and yellow, respectively) got a huge bump, even going over emily ratajkowski (blue). when the magazine came out, hannah ferguson (purple) got a massive jump, probably because of her bodypainting being featured on reddit. i've included gigi hadid on both graphs because she's one of the few rookies who actually shows up on the scale above. she's the green line above and the blue line below. notice how these other girls (samantha, sara, chanel, and bregje) got relatively tiny bumps compared to gigi's, and gigi's was small compared to hannah and lily's. basically, the search interest for emily ratajkowski is like 50x that of bregje.

February 25, 7:30pm 19% Samantha Hoopes 19% Emily Ratajkowski 19% Gigi Hadid 18% Sara Sampaio 12% Hannah Ferguson 5% Marloes Horst 4% Cris Urena I really don't think the voting is rigged; there's certainly no evidence that it's rigged. It could just be that the percentages reflect the votes within the past XX hours. If that was it, you could expect to see a good amount of yo-yo'ing in certain models' votes, which is exactly what we've seen. Just think about it: if SI was rigging the vote, they'd certainly have more than 1-2% for their COVER GIRL!!

February 20, 7:15pm 29% Emily Ratajkowski 29% Sara Sampaio 25% Gigi Hadid 8% Hannah Ferguson 7% Samantha Hoopes February 21, 7:30pm 27% Gigi Hadid 27% Emily Ratajkowski 20% Samantha Hoopes 19% Sara Sampaio 5% Hannah Ferguson February 23, 11:30am 23% Emily Ratajkowski 22% Samantha Hoopes 20% Gigi Hadid 14% Sara Sampaio 13% Marloes Horst (first time above 2%) 6% Hannah Ferguson February 23, 10:00pm 20% Emily Ratajkowski 20% Samantha Hoopes 19% Sara Sampaio 17% Gigi Hadid 10% Marloes Horst 10% Hannah Ferguson February 24, 8:30pm 20% Sara Sampaio 19% Samantha Hoopes 19% Gigi Hadid 17% Emily Ratajkowski 11% Hannah Ferguson 7% Marloes Horst 3% Cris Urena (first time above 2%)

i'm not the biggest fan of kate, but it is the better cover! kinda strange for butts to be the front and boobs to be the back... if i were making a list of the best butts in the mag, nina would be in the top half. lily has a pretty good butt but the cover doesn't do it justice. and bregje, emrata, and sara are in another league, bringing some seriously nice backsides to the issue. i mean, bregje, damn.

so for people who have seen the magazine on newsstands, have you seen them displayed with the front cover (butts) or the back cover (kate)? the place i bought mine prominently featured both covers. they were even placed side-by-side on the racks as if they were two different magazines. seems like SI's version of having it both ways.

February 19, 8:45pm 33% Emily Ratajkowski 33% Gigi Hadid 16% Hannah Ferguson 11% Sara Sampaio 2% Samantha Hoopes February 20, 7:15pm 29% Emily Ratajkowski 29% Sara Sampaio 25% Gigi Hadid 8% Hannah Ferguson 7% Samantha Hoopes February 21, 7:30pm 27% Gigi Hadid 27% Emily Ratajkowski 20% Samantha Hoopes 19% Sara Sampaio 5% Hannah Ferguson

i'm surprised mods don't clean up this stuff, but they must've decided it's OK to diss samantha. unless you're her surgeon and you have some proof, try keeping your dumb thoughts to yourself. samantha's boobs are natural. someday you'll see breasts in person and maybe then you'll realize you have no idea what you're talking about. Nothing needs to be cleaned up. He's not bashing her just stating he thinks she has breast implants. How about you try to be quiet because you yourself are being rude and offensive by saying keep your dumb thoughts to yourself. This is your warning.

February 19, 8:45pm 33% Emily Ratajkowski 33% Gigi Hadid 16% Hannah Ferguson 11% Sara Sampaio 2% Samantha Hoopes February 20, 7:15pm 29% Emily Ratajkowski 29% Sara Sampaio 25% Gigi Hadid 8% Hannah Ferguson 7% Samantha Hoopes

February 19, 8:45pm 33% Emily Ratajkowski 33% Gigi Hadid 16% Hannah Ferguson 11% Sara Sampaio 2% Samantha Hoopes February 20, 7:15pm 29% Emily Ratajkowski 29% Sara Sampaio 25% Gigi Hadid 8% Hannah Ferguson 7% Samantha Hoopes

a few stats about the 2014 issue. note that i'm counting models, not legends, athletes, etc. number of models: 24, the highest ever. the previous high was 21 in 2000 number of rookies: 12, the second-highest since 2000's 13 rookies number of returning rookies: 4, or 100% of last year's rookies. this marks the first time since the concept of rookies was introduced in 1999 that all of the rookies came back. number of veterans: 12, roughly equal to the average of the last decade rookie to veteran ratio: 1.0, the lowest since 2000 (diane smith's second year as editor) and the first time since 1985 there are an equal number of new models was equal to the number of returning models Lily Aldridge became the 5th model in the last 25 years to get the cover in her first appearance. previously, the most recent was Heidi Klum in 1998, before the concept of rookies. perhaps her feat is more comparable to Valeria Mazza, who shared the cover in her first appearance in 1996. Kate Upton becomes the 1st model to be featured on the back cover, traditionally a prime advertisement spot. also, it's essentially Kate's 4th appearance on the cover, meaning she's been on the cover in some form every. single. year. on that note...boobs: huge. probably the biggest they've ever been. also, butts: 2nd backside-dominated cover. the only other one was ann simonton in 1974 2014 marks the 16th year of bodypainting, but it's the 1st time since 2002 that the words 'body paint' or 'paint' do NOT appear on the cover! Anne V's 10th appearance continues her record number of appearances without a cover. Jessica White appeared 8 times in the magazine, but she at least was seen on the cover as an inset in 2005. for total number of appearances, Anne is still two years shy of tying Kathy Ireland's record. Irina made her 3rd appearance after her 2011 cover. no other cover model in the past 9 years has returned so often after getting the cover models' average number of appearances: 2.75, lower than some recent issues but still fairly high considering half of the models are rookies. had Anne V and Irina not returned, that number would've been 2.0, or the lowest since 2001.

February 19, 8:45pm 33% Emily Ratajkowski 33% Gigi Hadid 16% Hannah Ferguson 11% Sara Sampaio 2% Samantha Hoopes February 20, 7:15pm 29% Emily Ratajkowski 29% Sara Sampaio 25% Gigi Hadid 8% Hannah Ferguson 7% Samantha Hoopes Note: I'm rounding the percentages and so the top two appear tied, but EmRata is slightly ahead and has been every time I've checked. For instance, right now she's at 28.75% to Sara's 28.72%. VERY slim margin.

February 19, 8:45pm 33% Emily Ratajkowski 33% Gigi Hadid 16% Hannah Ferguson 11% Sara Sampaio 2% Samantha Hoopes